The High Price of Being Single in America

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SilentPanda, Jan 15, 2013.

  1. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #1
    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-high-price-of-being-single-in-america/267043/

     
  2. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #2
    But it may be against state law.


    The health and life insurance difference may be actuarial, at least in part. I remember reading that married people, as a group, live longer. Sorry, it's anecdotal for now; I have no citations handy.
     
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    As a married person, it sucks that you are discriminated against.
     
  5. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #5
    This would be much less of a problem if our government didn't try to buy our support by subsidizing nearly every aspect of our lives. Why we put tax incentives on marriage, home ownership (read: mortgage debt), having children, giving to charity is beyond me.
     
  6. SilentPanda thread starter Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #6
    Hard to argue without citations. I'd be interested to see where the stats came from. A cursory check on Google seems to go back and forth like two 8 year olds in the back seat of the car. How long do you have to be married to be considered married? How long are you divorced or your spouse deceased before you are counted as single again? Why do single people die earlier than married people? Do they take more risks? Are they including people in their 20's/30's who maybe haven't gotten married yet and die from risky activities or suicide but potentially would have gotten married otherwise?
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    That much is the same all over. Social engineering through taxation.
     
  8. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #8
    Perhaps something about ensuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity that makes up and justifies our Constitution?

    We are a nation, and while we are living in "generation me", our lives don't always have to be just about "me".

    BL.
     
  9. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #9
    Go tell the guy who is upside down on his mortgage and about to get foreclosed on how we're all appreciative of the sacrifice he made for the general welfare.

    I agree that we're living in generation me and how terrible that is. But using taxes to incentivize debt, having kids and getting married is beyond silly. This is especially so when you factor in that we, as a country, can't actually afford it.
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    I am one of those who is upside down in their mortgage. Even after a loan mod, my house is still $100,000 underwater. But keep in mind that it wasn't the common people who caused the housing bubble to bust. Back again to banks, greed, and "it's all about me".

    Everyone who has owned a home going back to the 50s probably has received some sort of incentive, so you really can't blame the people for that.

    Again, bubbles, booms, and busts. However.. are you saying that two people who love each other should not start a family, because the country can't afford it? For all intents and purposes, you've just implied that we should follow China's path and restrict birthing of children.

    I seriously hope you are not implying that.

    BL.
     
  11. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #11
    I think he is saying there shouldn't need to be tax incentives on the government's part to have kids or to get married
     
  12. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #12
    I"m honestly not trying to be rude here....but you're obviously not doing better than skimming what I am writing.

    Of course people should start families as they see fit. Of course people should have kids if they so choose. I just don't see why the government should subsidize those efforts. If someone has the money to buy a house, then they should get one. If they need help from the government in order to afford it, then they shouldn't. Pretty simple point being made there.
     
  13. bradl, Jan 15, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013

    bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #13
    If that is what he implied for kids, then to an extent I would agree, especially in the case of the Duggers and their 19 kids. We surely can't restrict anyone on how many kids they want to have like we can't restrict what they do with their bodies, but the incentives can be limited; where that limit should be is up for discussion.

    As far as marriage goes, we then come back to the issues with gay marriage and DOMA: Get rid of the concept of it and its incentives completely, for EVERYONE, or make it inclusive for everyone. But I don't see those on the Right going along with that.

    Then I read way too much into your statement. Yes, they should buy a home if and only if they can afford it, let alone have kids if they can afford it. Should it be their only means of income or feel like they are entitled to it? absolutely not. I still subscribe to the Michael Jackson credo:

    Thanks for clarifying.

    BL.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    If you believe people should be responsible before starting a family you must be, a) pro-choice and b) believe in strong sex and relationship education.
     
  15. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #15
    Ideally, shouldn't it be that way?

    I know I don't plan on having kids until I am in a nice position to do so
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Absolutely.

    But if you're pro-life then you're a hypocrite. No contraceptive has perfect reliability, even when it is used properly.

    And expecting people to figure out sex education on their own is naive.
     
  17. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #17
    "Kinder kriegen die Leute immer" (engl. "people will always have children") - Konrad Adenauer 1957, when his economy minister voiced his concerns about how the new german pension system would be dependent on consistent birth rates

    Birthrate Germany 2010: 1,39 kids per woman ... the highest since _1990_
     
  18. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #18
    It's time for (over half of) the electorate to start realising that 'family friendly policy' actually means 'screw you single people'.
     
  19. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #19
    As I was reading the article I assumed that the cost of raising a child would balance out the price of being single nicely… nope.

    Guess it's time to get married.
     
  20. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #20
    People shouldn't be bullied into getting married, no matter what sexuality. I'm not gonna anchor my life to anything or anyone (except perhaps my guitars).

    I guess you have to pay for the priveliege of freedom. :p
     
  21. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #21
    Hey people there is nothing wrong with marriage, it was so good I tried three times.:eek:
     
  22. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    Well said on the guitars. They may as well cut off my left arm if they pry my guitars away from me! :D

    BL.
     
  23. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Jan 15, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2013

    jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #23
    Because they are frequently public goods. It benefits you when your neighbor's children are educated and gainfully employed. It benefits you when epidemics don't tear through your town. It benefits you when science and medicine advance. These things benefit you because they benefit everyone without exclusion. So, it makes sense for you to be taxed to pay for them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
     
  24. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #24
    The solution is obvious - three-way marriages. :rolleyes:
     
  25. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #25
    My wife and I are under that and will remain so :D
     

Share This Page